They say every cloud has a silver lining, and Supervisor Christina Olague sees some big ones in her bruising election day loss: Come January, it'll be no more City Hall, no more mayor's office and no more media criticizing her every move.

"I'm happy to be going back to a quieter life," she said, saying she'll focus on finishing the psychology degree she's been working toward at the California Institute of Integral Studies and finding a community organizing job - perhaps where she used to work at Senior Action Network.

"I want something very low-key," she said. "A very slip-under-the-radar kind of job. A not-be-noticed-by-anybody-in-the-media kind of job."

Less than a year ago, Olague was the progressive president of the Planning Commission who'd surprised some of her political allies by chairing a committee to persuade Ed Lee, a moderate, to run for a four-year term as mayor.

Lee won and on Jan. 9 appointed Olague to fill the vacancy left by Ross Mirkarimi, the supervisor of District Five who'd been elected sheriff. (Isn't it bizarre what a year can bring?)

Olague spent 2012 alternately irking her progressive base or the Lee camp. She shocked the mayor's office last month with her vote to reinstate Mirkarimi as sheriff despite his guilty plea to a misdemeanor related to bruising his wife. A few weeks later, Olague was trounced in the District Five election by the more moderate London Breed,who will be sworn in Jan. 8.

Olague described the year as akin to walking through a forest with people hiding behind trees with daggers on her left and her right.

If she sided with the progressive supervisors - like with John Avalos' attempt to tax businesses more - the mayor's office said, "Throw a dagger at her!" she said. If she sided with the moderates, like her vote to approve the 8 Washington development, the left said, "Throw a dagger at her!"

"The Ross vote - oh that's like political suicide, a land mine as far as the mayor's office was concerned," she said. "As far as the progressive groups were concerned, it wasn't a land mine. It was the opposite effect."

She said the mayor's office never helped her acclimate to her new job.

"I can't say his administration was ever that friendly," she said. "It's about the votes. It's not like they have an investment in the person."

She said she and Lee haven't spoken since the Mirkarimi vote. "We don't talk anymore," she said. "It was a parting of the ways."

Overall, she said, the year was a positive experience - until the final weeks of the campaign, which she described as "nasty." She sounded especially ticked off by the independent expenditure committee that was formed by political consultant Andrea Shorter with money from tech investor Ron Conway to defeat her over the Mirkarimi vote.

"They slayed my character," she said.

She said her biggest regret was her inability to engage the media. (Our conversation for this column was the longest we'd ever talked, and she was known for not returning calls and being alternately angry or immersed in text messaging at debates and editorial board meetings.)

"I would do things differently - return calls, just engage differently," she said.

So does Olague have any advice for Breed?

"Not really," she said. "She'll have plenty of support, plenty of people she can go to. Ron Conway and others. Andrea Shorter, Willie Brown, Amos Brown. She's going to be fine."

Several members of the Board of Supervisors were appalled during Tuesday's heated discussion about whether to ban nudity - and it wasn't by the nudists who stripped down in the audience.

It was by the five progressive supervisors who used some very threadbare logic in explaining their vote against Supervisor Scott Wiener's legislation. (Wiener prevailed 6-5.)

"Stunned is an appropriate word," said Supervisor Mark Farrellof his reaction to the debate. "The arguments were completely absurd. If this becomes a quote-unquote progressive cause, I think that says volumes about how far out of touch they are with most of San Francisco."

Among them, Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar, Christina Olague and Jane Kimsaid approving a nudity ban would jeopardize the Police Department's ability to respond to gang violence, be akin to banning homeless people and lead down a slippery slope where it would be illegal to have yellow hair, piercings or tattoos. (All you blond Marina girls with earrings and tramp stamps, watch out!)

They also said that because nudity is a problem only in the Castro, it shouldn't be a city matter. (Voters did, though, approve a sit/lie ban citywide even though it was a problem only in the Haight, and City Hall has cracked down on massage parlors that are a front for sex work citywide even though they're a big problem only in Chinatown and the Sunset District.)

Perhaps the best, though, was Mar's assertion that the nudity ban was too trivial for the board. This from the supervisor who fought to ban free toys in Happy Meals and called on the Grammys to add 31 categories of music to their awards.

"I did choke a little on the water I was drinking when Eric Mar castigated us for focusing on petty issues," said Supervisor Sean Elsbernd. "Discussing the Grammy Awards? That was a highlight of my career at the Board of Supervisors, and Eric Mar brought that one to us."

Quote of the week

"I cannot and will not bite this apple. I refuse to put on this fig leaf." Supervisor John Avalos, before casting a vote against the ban on public nudity